STUMM et al v. TOWN OF PITTSBORO

Filing 89

ORDER - On June 18, 2019, the Court concluded a jury trial in this matter and ordered the parties to submit further briefing as to the form of judgment. [Filing No. 83.] The parties have done so, and the issue is now ripe for the Court's conside ration. For the reasons set forth in the Order, the Court will enter final judgment in the amount of $15,000.00 in favor of Mr. Stumm and against Defendants Christi Patterson and the Town of Pittsboro. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/15/2019.(JDH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JASON A. STUMM,
MATTHEW W. STUMM
Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

vs.
TOWN OF PITTSBORO,
CHRISTI PATTERSON,
SCOTT KING
Defendants.

1:17-cv-4296-JMS-MJD

ORDER
On June 18, 2019, the Court concluded a jury trial in this matter and ordered the parties to
submit further briefing as to the form of judgment. [Filing No. 83.] The parties have done so, and
the issue is now ripe for the Court’s consideration.
I.
BACKGROUND
On June 17 and 18, 2019, the Court conducted a jury trial in this matter. [Filing No. 81;
Filing No. 83.] Prior to the trial, the Court ordered the parties to prepare and file jointly proposed
verdict forms. [Filing No. 79 at 2.] At trial, counsel informed the Court that the parties had agreed
to the verdict forms previously submitted by Defendants. [Filing No. 77.] At the conclusion of
the trial, the jury was provided with the parties’ jointly-proposed verdict forms, with minor
formatting changes. [Compare Filing No. 77 with Filing No. 84.]
Following deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Matthew Stumm
against Defendants Christi Patterson and the Town of Pittsboro. [Filing No. 84.] The jury
specifically found that Matthew Stumm proved by a preponderance of the evidence that:
•

Christi Patterson violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment, [Filing No. 84 at 4];

1

•

the Town of Pittsboro violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment, [Filing No. 84 at
4];

•

Christi Patterson violated his rights under the Federal Wiretap Act, [Filing No. 84 at 8];
and

•

the Town of Pittsboro violated his rights under the Federal Wiretap Act, [Filing No. 84 at
8].
In addition, the jury found that Matthew Stumm proved his damages by a preponderance

of the evidence. [Filing No. 84 at 4; Filing No. 84 at 8.] The jury indicated as such by placing a
checkmark in the appropriate box on the verdict form entitled “FOURTH AMENDMENT
CLAIM, MATTHEW STUMM,” [Filing No. 84 at 4] and by placing a checkmark in the
appropriate box on the verdict form entitled “WIRETAP ACT CLAIM, MATTHEW STUMM,”
[Filing No. 84 at 8.]
Lastly, the jury determined the amount of compensatory damages that Matt Stumm proved
that he sustained from a violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment and from a violation
of his rights under the Federal Wiretap Act. [Filing No. 84 at 5; Filing No. 84 at 9.] The jury did
so by writing $15,000 on the appropriate line on the verdict form entitled “FOURTH
AMENDMENT CLAIM, MATTHEW STUMM,” [Filing No. 84 at 5] and by writing $15,000 on
the appropriate line on the verdict form entitled “WIRETAP ACT CLAIM, MATTHEW
STUMM,” [Filing No. 84 at 9.]
Following the jury’s discharge, the Court ordered Matthew Stumm to propose the form of
judgment and allowed Defendants to respond thereto.

2

II.
DISCUSSION
Matthew Stumm argues that the Court should enter judgment in his favor “against
Defendants Town of Pittsboro and Christi Patterson in the amount of $30,000.” [Filing No. 86 at
4.] He argues that the verdict forms “presented the jury with two distinct claims: one based on the
Fourth Amendment, and a second based on the Federal Wiretap Act,” and that “[b]y writing the
amount of $15,000 twice . . . the jury expressed its intent” to award him “total compensatory
damages of $30,000.” [Filing No. 86 at 2.] Although Mr. Stumm acknowledges that “the two
claims are legally quite similar,” he contends that the jury “would not necessarily have interpreted
them that way.” [Filing No. 86 at 2.] He argues that the Court must consider the verdict forms in
light of the instructions, which describe the Fourth Amendment claim “in language that is
dauntingly dissimilar to the instructions that describe the Federal Wiretap Act violation,” and do
not instruct that the two claims are identical or duplicative. [Filing No. 86 at 3.] Further, Mr.
Stumm argues that the “Verdict Forms tracked the Final Instructions in treating damages for each
claim as separate and distinct,” and “would have allowed the jury to find in favor of a Plaintiff on
one of the two legal theories but not the other” or “award a different amount of compensatory
damages on each claim.” [Filing No. 86 at 3.] Mr. Stumm further contends that the law “requires
that a verdict form not confuse or mislead the jury,” and that if “the law required Plaintiff to be
compensated identically for both claims, then the verdict form should have provided a single line
stating the total compensatory damages for both claims.” [Filing No. 86 at 3.]
In response, Defendants argue that judgment “should be entered in the total amount of
$15,000.” [Filing No. 88 at 1.] Defendants contend that this case “involves a single indivisible
injury for which Defendants, if liable on either theory, are jointly and severally liable” and that the
Court “cannot permit [Mr.] Stumm to obtain a double recovery for the one, indivisible injury at
3

issue in this case.” [Filing No. 88 at 1.] In addition, Defendants argue that the damages instruction
given to the jury “advised the jury to ‘determine the amount of money that will fairly compensate
[Stumm] for any injury [Stumm] sustained as a direct result of the recordings made by the lobby
video camera.’” [Filing No. 88 at 2-3 (emphasis added by Defendants).] Defendants acknowledge
that the verdict forms contained “a flaw,” but contend that that a “flaw does not make double
recovery legally permissible.” [Filing No. 88 at 3-4.]
“Generally, a plaintiff is only entitled to a single recovery for a single injury, regardless of
how many defendants could be liable for that single injury, or how many different theories of
recovery could apply to that single injury.” Portalatin v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore,
LLC, 900 F.3d 377, 383 (7th Cir. 2018); see also Swanigan v. City of Chicago, 881 F.3d 577, 582
(7th Cir. 2018) (“Federal common law prevents § 1983 plaintiffs from recovering twice for the
same injury”). Damages “are not assessed ‘by defendant’ or ‘by claim’ but ‘for’ an injury.” Duran
v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 653 F.3d 632, 640 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation omitted).
Mr. Stumm argues that the jury was not informed that the two claims were identical and
that the final instructions “present the two legal claims as separate and distinct.” [Filing No. 86 at
3.] But this argument misses the mark. The jury was not informed that the claims were identical
because they are not – Mr. Stumm’s Fourth Amendment claim and his Federal Wiretap Act claim
are two separate theories of recovery. But the existence of separate theories of recovery does not
mean that Mr. Stumm suffered separate injuries. At trial, Mr. Stumm failed to present evidence
of separate injuries arising out of each theory of recovery. Similarly, Mr. Stumm makes no
argument here that he suffered separate injuries.
In addition, the Court notes that it finds persuasive Defendants’ argument that Final
Instruction 18 did not improperly instruct the jury to determine damages for the same injuries on

4

different legal theories, and their argument that a flaw in the verdict forms would not make double
recovery legally permissible. It is true that the jointly proposed Verdict Forms fail to comply with
the Seventh Circuit’s guidance that a verdict form “should not be structured in a way that would
invite the jury to divide the damages for a single injury among defendants or theories of recovery.”
Thomas v. Cook Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 604 F.3d 293, 313 (7th Cir. 2010). But the Verdict Forms
must also be read in conjunction with Final Instruction 18, which instructed the jury to determine
the amount of money that would fairly compensate Mr. Stumm “for any injury you find he
sustained as a direct result of the recordings made by the lobby video camera.” [Filing No. 83-1
at 20.] The Court will assume, as it must, that the jury followed Instruction 18 and awarded
compensation to Mr. Stumm for the single injury he sustained as a result of his two different
theories of recovery.
As a final matter, the Court rejects Mr. Stumm’s argument that if the Court enters judgment
in the amount of $15,000 “then then Verdict Form will have mislead [sic] the jury.” [Filing No.
86 at 3.] The Court notes that the Verdict Form was jointly proposed by the parties, which
undercuts Mr. Stumm’s argument that such forms are misleading and indicates his affirmative
approval of the forms. See U.S. v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 488 (1997) (citation and quotation omitted)
(noting that “under the ‘invited error’ doctrine” a party “may not complain on appeal of errors that
he himself invited or provoked the [district] court ... to commit”).
As such, the Court rejects Mr. Stumm’s arguments as to the form of judgment and will
enter final judgment in the amount of $15,000.00 in order to prevent a double recovery for the
same injury.

5

III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will enter final judgment in the amount of
$15,000.00 in favor of Mr. Stumm and against Defendants Christi Patterson and the Town of
Pittsboro.

Date: 7/15/2019

Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record.

6